Punjab & Haryana High Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide; Holds Single Knife Blow in Sudden Fight Attracts Section 304 Part I IPC
Case Name: Swarn Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 22 January 2026
Citation: CRA-D-290-DB-2004
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal and altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, holding that the offence arose out of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, involved a single knife blow, and did not disclose conduct amounting to murder under Section 300 IPC. Considering the appellant’s advanced age and long period of incarceration, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
Summary: The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar, under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Baljinder Singh and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was based on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses—Tarsem Singh and Lakhwinder Singh—who stated that the appellant inflicted a knife blow on the chest of the deceased during a confrontation that took place while the parties were returning from fields at night.
The motive attributed was suspicion on the part of the appellant that the deceased had illicit relations with his daughter. Medical evidence established that the deceased suffered one incised stab wound on the chest, which proved fatal due to haemorrhage and shock.
Before the High Court, the appellant did not dispute the occurrence but argued that the incident took place on the spur of the moment, without pre-planning, and that only a single blow was inflicted. It was contended that the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, warranting conversion of conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Division Bench carefully analysed the eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and surrounding circumstances in light of authoritative Supreme Court precedents including Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P., Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat, Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., and State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal. The Court reiterated that a single blow can, depending on facts, fall either under Section 302 or Section 304, and the decisive factor is the presence or absence of intention and premeditation.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the scuffle was sudden, the appellant did not repeat the assault, did not act in a cruel or unusual manner, and fled immediately after the incident. These factors cumulatively attracted Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. However, since the injury was inflicted on a vital part with a deadly weapon, knowledge that death was likely could be attributed, justifying conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC.
On the question of sentence, the Court took note that the appellant was about 70 years old at the time of trial, was over 94 years of age at present, and had already undergone more than 11 years of custody including remissions while facing criminal proceedings for over 25 years.
Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to Section 304 Part I IPC. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, while the fine imposed by the Trial Court was maintained.